 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
The complete MPAA propoganda video is remarkably also for the extent to which it exagerates the importance of the movie industry: we wouldn't really want to lose all these ordinary jobs would we? In the first and second screen of the video it is claimed that the U.S. motion picture industry employs 580,000 people nationwide, 259,00 of whom work directly in the production and service jobs necessary to create motion picture and television shows; the final screen lets us know that the "U.S. Copyright Industries" contribute more to the economy and employ more American workers than any other single manufacturing industry.
In this case, it is the U.S. Census Bureau that has a somewhat different perspective. The "U.S. Copyright Industries" are what the Census classifies as part of the "Information" industry. According to the 1997 Economic Census, the "Motion picture & sound recording industries" which includes not only motion picture and television production - but also music and sound recording - employs 275,981 paid employees. By way of contrast, IBM alone employs over 300,000 people. |
1. 259,000 ~ 275,981.
2. Music and sound recording are actual TV and motion picture functions. Do you think that James Horner is not working for the movie industry? 
3. What the article fails to mention is that they are comparing apples to oranges. The "Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries" classification does not include the Broadcasting or Telecommunications industry (classification 514, 1.4 million employees), many of whom work in the "copyright industries." Many other classifications (including software - classification # 5112 (235,000 employees), publishers - classification #511, 1 million employees (software employees are a sub-category of publishing) not included in those totals. In fact, the census claims that over 3,000,000 people work in the information sector (see page 10 of the following report for a definition of "Information Sector". This is the report the OP's link refers to, btw.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The main problem is, if you pirate a movie, this does not directly impact fixed-wage employees unless the company becomes unprofitable. It impacts the producers who get a cut of the profits.
Time and time again it has been shown if you make a good movie people like, it is profitable.
Titanic, for example, was absolutely terrible but made a fortune.  |
1. It's not just when it becomes unprofitable, if it isn't profitable enough, line-worker jobs will get cut. Investors just don't expect companies to earn money, they require them to earn a specific amount of money (usually expressed in terms of EPS, of course.)
2. Though it was just eight years ago, Titanic wasn't released in an age of widely distributed home-broadband networks. Therefore the comparison is moot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
1. It's not just when it becomes unprofitable, if it isn't profitable enough, line-worker jobs will get cut. Investors just don't expect companies to earn money, they require them to earn a specific amount of money (usually expressed in terms of EPS, of course.) |
How can you cut line-worker jobs? As I see it the cost is fairly negligable to the company (especially compared to other costs, such as overpaid actors), and you can't just go and cut your electricians or whatever...what you can do is pay Tom Cruise $15M/movie instead of $20M/movie, though.
quote:
2. Though it was just eight years ago, Titanic wasn't released in an age of widely distributed home-broadband networks. Therefore the comparison is moot. |
Lord of the Rings was. It did okay, didn't it? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Because we already paid $13 to see the movie. And then they tell us not to download it.
...
That's another thing: Movie prices are insane today, they're driving people away. Further, there's 15-20 mins of previews before movies, and 5 minutes of pure ads before that.
If they're concerned about people not wanting to go to theatres, they need to look at why... |
Previews have always been a big attraction of movies, since the invention of the long-form cinema format actually. If you don't like them that's fine, but don't blame market conditions of today for the existence of trailers. Back when my parents went to movies they not only had to sit through trailers, but there was a newsreel, a cartoon or two, and maybe even a 5-minute travelogue.
Ads before the movies came about in 1976 (years before you were born, iirc). In the Atlanta area (where I was living then), the first movie with ads (as opposed to trailers, travelogues, etc) to appear before the screening was Murder by Death. If you're complaining about it, it's because you've actually begun to notice them, not because they "just appeared."
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-04-2005 13:00
I note the lack of tales of instances where you downloaded a movie, enjoyed it, but decided it wasn't worth purchasing or renting. Something tells me that happens far more than your Kill Bill scenario.
)
|